John Solomon

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and my pleasure to speak in opposition to Bill C-57, the bill to enact the World Trade Organization legislation.

There are many reasons we oppose the bill as New Democrats. Before getting into the reasons I want to make a comment or observation. When we have a bill that is supported and put forward by the Liberal government of about 250 pages dealing with an agenda the large multinational corporations want to see completed, that is supported by Bloc members in the House and is supported by the Reform Party, it seems to me Canadians should pay particular attention to the implications of the bill. When a bill is supported by the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party there has to be something peculiar, mysterious, suspicious and probably disadvantageous to Canadians.

I challenge any member in the House to stand to say they have read the bill because I do not think they have. I do not think they understand the implications of the bill. However I have had occasion to read most of it. I have not read it all, but what I have read is unbelievable with respect to what the bill does to Canadian producers, agriculture producers, steel producers, sugar producers and other manufacturers.

The reason I say that is that the bill does not stand up for Canadians. Members of the New Democratic Party, the member for Winnipeg Transcona, the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, the member for Mackenzie and others, have stood in the House of Commons to say that they have major concerns about the bill. We have heard the concerns in agriculture. We have heard the concerns about child labour and important social equities with respect to Bill C-57.

When I look at a bill I look at certain criteria the bill has to meet in order for me to support it. It has to be fair. It has to be equitable to those it affects. It has to be responsible. The government has to account for its actions with respect to the bill.

In my observations of the bill I can only conclude that if the legislation does not meet the criteria I have set out as being acceptable to Canadians and to the people of Regina-Lumsden whom I represent, it cannot possibly go forward without comprehensive debate and amendment.

As a result the New Democratic Party put forward amendments in the House to address issues of equity, fairness, responsibility and accountability. They were defeated by the government, by members of the Reform Party and by members of the Bloc Quebecois. This is very disconcerting to the people of Canada as well as to our caucus because we tried to inject some fairness.

I want to make a couple of points with respect to the bill. For example, the WTO is a new constitution for the globalized economy written by and for multinationals, the transnationals of the world. The government has rejected a policy of developing a social clause to the WTO that would ensure multinationals recognize basic labour and environmental standards to prevent the race to the bottom.

Even though the WTO supposedly offers a new rules based trading regime that will bring relief from trade harassment, American behaviour under NAFTA rules and evasive measures put into the American implementing legislation make it very unlikely that the Americans will play by the rules.

In my remarks today I want to focus on the American legislation and how it protects American producers and American businessmen. The Canadian legislation we see before the House today does not protect Canadians in the same way.

The biggest claim of WTO advocates is that it will inaugurate a new era of a rules based trading regime with enforceable rules regarding dumping and subsidies. The only problem is that the biggest single player, the United States, clearly has no intention of obeying the rules. We have already seen how under NAFTA rules the harassment of our trade in lumber and wheat has gone on unabated.

The results of the recent congressional elections do not give Canadians much cause for hope that this behaviour will change. More important, the Americans have written into their implementing legislation a long list of provisions that effectively guarantee that no WTO will ever overturn an American federal or state measure. The Americans have given notice that they will treat WTO rules as they have treated NAFTA rules: to ignore if they go against perceived American interests.

We in the New Democratic Party have proposed amendments that would have written into Canadian law exactly the same protection from WTO rulings the Americans have given to themselves. The government with typical gullibility about American goodwill chose to defeat our amendments. That reminds me: it is the same gullibility of the former Conservative Government of Canada. It bent over backward for the Americans and now we see the Liberals who were supposed to be different are not different. They are the same. They did exactly what the Conservative government did in the last Parliament of Canada. Liberal, Tory, same old story, I presume.

In one sense we can look forward to the American sabotage of the new WTO rules in the way that they have sabotaged the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism. To get these rules we have sacrificed a tremendous amount of sovereignty over investment policy and social security standards. With a rules based system imposed on American protectionism we can begin to rebuild a new constitution for the global economy that represents the interests of the communities.

I share with members an incident that occurred involving myself and other members of the House of Commons last May. We are a member of the steel caucus. The steel caucus is composed of all parties with steel production in their constituencies. I am proud to say I have IPSCO, the Interprovincial Pipe and Steel Company in my district. It employs about 1,100 people. It is a very conscientious and environmentally sound corporation. It produces a significant amount of steel and pipe for the Canadian and American economies and for economies outside North America.

We visited with American congressmen and senators on the issue of steel production. The reason we were there was that Canadian steel producers had been injured by anti-dumping claims of the American steel industry. We went there to talk to the legislators because they have legislation in effect which ignores NAFTA and which ignores the WTO that we have before the House today to protect their own producers.

If they believe, if it is perceived-it does not have to be proven-to injure their own industry, they can use whatever ability they have under the legislation in effect to deflect or stop trading nations from selling that product in their country.

We have asked as a caucus to have this legislation amended to reflect the concerns of Canadian steel producers, our agricultural producers and others, including sugar, so that we are protected in the event that the WTO is injurious to Canadian producers. The government has defeated that. It ignored our requests and we are very concerned that as are the people in these industries.

The Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra gave a historical perspective as to what he thought Franklin Delano Roosevelt intended in his trade negotiations. I want to throw a quote back to the member for Vancouver Quadra from Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he was president: "The true test of progress in society is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much but whether we provide enough for those who have too little". That is a very important message that was relevant then, relevant now with respect to governments protecting the people in their countries from injurious economic initiatives from other countries regardless of world trade regulations.

They are set up to set some standard and regulations to govern and trade by, to have economic interchange, but in the end the bottom line is that if it is injurious to your country a government is elected by the people for the people to protect the people.

However, if you pass a law that does not provide that protection, you are giving up your obligation and right to govern the people you have been elected to govern. What the heck is going on here? I cannot understand this. I do not think anybody else in the country understands this either.

What we have to do is point out to the Canadian population that Bill C-57 is injurious to the steel producers of Canada. It is injurious to the agricultural producers of Canada. It is injurious to the sugar producers of Canada and that means it must be injurious to much of Canada.

If that is the case, why are they injuring our own people? We have enough competitors out there who are taking advantage of our country and our economy. We do not have to let the walls fall down and let our mechanisms of defence collapse and encourage outside countries to rape and plunder our economy further.

The government is making a serious mistake with respect to passing Bill C-57 unamended. As a matter of fact, we have support from many people. I have a letter here from the sugar refineries. My former deskmate, a Conservative member, the member for Saint John, the former mayor of Saint John, has written to the Minister of Finance, pointing out what impact Bill C-57 will have on the sugar industry.

I can get into that in a few minutes but I want to provide some evidence from the steel producers of Canada. They have made representations to the government, to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade as late as November 16 and they have indicated that Bill C-57 as proposed is going to be injurious to the steel producers of Canada. They document it in numbers.

They say that because of the anti-dumping situations and charges, they have been victims of the American steel industry. It is costing them millions of dollars. They are saying that this type of anti-dumping initiative is injurious to their exporting and steel production.

We are not dumping steel in the United States. We produce steel here and we sell it directly on a contract basis after winning a tender like any other producer would do in North America. Yet they single us out as being unproductive and as being overly competitive because they feel it is hurting their industry.

The facts show and the truth is that is not the case. The steel producers of Canada want the government to make a couple of amendments on the following points. They suggested and we have put forward this proposal in the House that the Special Import Measures Act should be amended and should provide the Canadian international trade tribunal with some authority with respect to injury on the steel exports in Canada.

Unlike the American implementing legislation, Bill C-57 provides no guidelines as to what would be acceptable evidence. Without guidelines it would be very difficult for a Canadian company to know how to demonstrate a foreseen and imminent threat of injury. American companies will have an easier task under the legislation even though the same principle of the WTO is being implemented.

The U.S. implementing legislation also provides that if dumping diminishes in reaction to the filing of a complaint, the ITC may discount evidence after the filing of its assessment of injury. This makes it easier for an injury charge to stick. There is no comparable provision in C-57.

They go on and talk about a number of other issues. Bill C-57 does not say anything about how the threat of injury should be interpreted at the time of review of an anti-dumping action. The American legislation does provide for these things.

I could go on in detail about what the steel producers feel is injurious. The point is that every time they win a contract, export the steel to the States, even though NAFTA is in existence, even though the WTO is preparing to be in existence, the Americans can say because they have lost the contracts in the open tendering process: "We are not going to let them take this contract because we are going to ask them for more information". If they ask for all sorts of information it costs Canadian steel producers literally millions of dollars to gather this information which then makes their original bid more expensive and unprofitable. It also delays and is more or less a discouraging act on the part of the Americans. They have this in the legislation.

If the Americans harass Canadian steel producers they have their law on their side and the Congress to provide them with that lever. Canadians and the Government of Canada are saying: "We are not going to be like the Americans. We do not want to provide protection to Canadians because we will be just like the Americans then".

Some things the Americans do are pretty smart. That is why they are the most successful business people in the world. That is why they have the most successful economy. They always undertake economic initiatives to the benefit of their country.

New Democrats oppose Bill C-57 on the basis that it is injurious to the economy of Canada.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was curious to hear the Liberal member for Erie make some comments about the steel industry and the steel producers in his

constituency in light of the fact that he is supporting Bill C-57 before the House today.

He made the argument that the steel industry is quite important in his constituency and that this trade agreement will benefit it. This flies in the face of what the Canadian Steel Producers Association has told us in this House of Commons. It says this bill requires some significant amendments to ensure protection of the steel producers and the producers association in Canada with trade with the Americans.

The Americans have a very strong legislative arm which protects their steel producers. When Canada produces and sells steel to the American economy and to the American business it is subject to some very rigorous and tight regulations. As a matter of fact, there have been a number of occasions when the Americans have levied anti-dumping charges against Canadian steel producers.

Bill C-57 does not address the concerns of the Canadian Steel Producers Association. Yet the member for Erie and the member from the Bloc stood in this House saying they are going to support this bill. They are saying it is going to be good for the steel industry. To the member for Erie, why is he saying this is a bill he is going to support, that it is good for the steel industry in Canada, when the Canadian Steel Producers Association says that it is not good for Canadian producers of steel? It has asked for a number of amendments which the New Democratic Party has put forward in this House to assist it in having a fair level playing field with the Americans.

Mr. Member, why are you supporting this bill? Why are you saying it is going to help Canadians to-

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party vote no on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Junior Football Champions, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Regina Rams junior football team from Saskatchewan.

On November 11 the Regina Rams had a day to remember when they won their 12th national football championship against the St. Leonard Cougars in Montreal. It was their second consecutive Canadian junior football championship.

It came as no surprise to Regina fans to see their team win by a score of 52 to 6. The Rams lost only one of the 25 games they played this season.

Despite their excellent record, the Regina Rams Football Club is about more than winning. It teaches teamwork and gives to these young men an opportunity to develop confidence and maturity. I am proud of all these fine players.

I would also like to offer special congratulations to Coach Frank McCrystal for his leadership and to congratulate Darryl Leason, the offensive star player, and Randy Sorchensky, the defensive star player.

I ask all parliamentarians to join with me today to congratulate the Regina Rams on winning the Canadian Junior Football Championships.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled to see that not only does the parliamentary secretary not have a great deal of knowledge about Saskatchewan and its many resources, but he does not seem to have a great deal of knowledge of the rules of the House either.

I will continue my preface by saying that the New Democratic Party government in Saskatchewan has been leading in many areas. For example, Allan Blakeney's NDP government from 1971 to 1982 had 11 consecutive balanced budgets, the only provincial government or jurisdiction in this country to do so. As a matter of fact that government was the last one to have a provincial balanced budget. The only reason it did not continue on was that in 1982 a Conservative government under Grant Devine was elected, supported by the Liberals. It proceeded to almost bankrupt the province in the nine years that followed.

At the same time as those balanced budgets we also had a prescription drug plan for all of our citizens. We had a dental plan for all of our children 18 years of age and under. We also had the lowest provincial tax regime in the entire nation.

I know the parliamentary secretary is salivating at this information. He is becoming quite educated with respect to Saskatchewan now that he has had the correct information put before him. I am sure he will look forward to visiting our province some day and meeting with Premier Romanow, who by the way was elected in 1991 after nine years of Conservative government. With respect to Bill C-57, I can assure the House that he has concerns as we do in this caucus with respect to these amendments.

Since 1991 we have undertaken to go from a $1 billion annual deficit to the point where now after three years we are on the verge of being the first jurisdiction provincially or federally in Canada to introduce a balanced budget. I want members of this House to know that. That is under an NDP government.

The second point I want to make is in relation to the Reform member from Peace River. He made some comment about Bill C-57 and the amendments thereto and how he supports Bill C-57, which does not protect the interests of Canadians. He believes it should proceed because he believes in competition.

John Ralston Saul is the author of The Doubter's Companion , a book which members should pay some attention to. It is a dictionary of aggressive common sense in which Reformers are very interested. He defines competition as an event in which there are more losers than winners. Otherwise, it is not a competition.

A society based on competition is therefore primarily a society of losers. Competition is of course a very good thing, he says. We cannot live in a complex society without it. On the other hand, if the principal relationship between citizens is based on competition what has society and for that matter, civilization been reduced to?

The purpose of competition is to establish which is the best. The best may be defined as any number of things: the fastest, the cheapest, the largest quantities. It may even be the highest quality. Unfortunately the more competition is unleashed the more it tends to eliminate quality as something too complex to be competitive.

Finally he says that the point of competition, if it is left to set its own standards is that only the winners benefit. This is as true in economics as it is in sport. A society which treats competition as a religious value will gradually reduce most of the population to the role of spectators.

Democracy is impossible in such a situation and so is middle class stability. That is why the return to increasingly unregulated competition over the last two decades has led to growing instability and an increasing gap between an ever richer elite and an ever larger poor population.

In final summary, competition in a middle class society must include the cost of middle class infrastructure. Hundreds of other factors create hundreds of other levels of competition. That is why in serious competition such as hockey or football there are strict regulations controlling time, movement, numbers, dress and language. Unregulated competition is a naive metaphor for anarchy.

What I want to say, thanks to Mr. Saul, is that the Reform Party wants competition in its purest form. If we have competition in its purest form, which I am not opposed to in a purest form society, we will have in essence anarchy. That is why we have Bill C-57 which establishes in continuity with the WTO some regulations on the playing field we are operating on on this globe.

I am saying that the government has to ensure that the playing field rules have fairness, equity and justice for Canadians as other countries are undertaking to provide for their own citizens.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak once again on the amendments to Bill C-57. Before getting into my specific remarks on this motion I want to say a couple of things.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade in his remarks earlier on this bill made some inference that the New Democratic Party provincial governments across this country were not in favour of trading with other nations. I want to correct the record.

I want to inform the parliamentary secretary that coming from Saskatchewan as I do, I know firsthand how important trade is to the farmers of Saskatchewan, the potash producers of Saskatchewan, the steel producers of Saskatchewan, the uranium miners of Saskatchewan and all the other people in our province who rely quite heavily on trade, including those who produce natural gas, oil, coal and other resources. The New Democratic Party government of Roy Romanow is not only on record supporting trade, but has instituted very aggressive trading policies with other nations with respect to the resources of Canada and the resources of Saskatchewan.

I am sure the parliamentary secretary made an oversight or had a sudden collapse of memory when he made reference to NDP governments and their support of trade. I am sure he would want to stand and correct that at some point after my remarks.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon in support of this motion put forward by my New Democratic Party colleague, the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

All we are asking in this motion is that the government be responsible, accountable, fair, and to introduce equity with respect to these international trade agreements. Accountability is very important to the people of this country. The government was elected on the basis of trust, on the basis that it would stand up for Canadians in Canada and stand up for Canada outside Canada.

What we see here is a government that is not being fully accountable in Bill C-57. That is why we are moving this motion to ensure there is an accountability process so the government can review this particular bill and this particular trade agreement, the WTO, and report back to us in a regular and a timely fashion.

It is a natural course of doing business. As a business person, you never undertake a business plan, or in this case a government plan, without having some mechanism from which you can assess whether the program is working or not, or whether your business plan is functioning properly and working well. There has to be a regular review process. All we are asking is for the government to be accountable to the people of Canada and to the businesses of Canada by undertaking a regular review and reporting back to Parliament; nothing more, nothing less.

The government has the responsibility to the Canadian people to be accountable for the actions it takes and to be accountable for the treaties it enters into with other countries. It has to be responsible in its actions. All we are asking is for the government to take responsibility and to account for its actions on a regular basis.

We are asking for fairness, the third point in my remarks. We are asking the government to treat its own people in a fair way. Some people may debate whether the Americans in their legislation are being fair internationally, and we believe that they are not, but they are being very fair to the people that they govern. They are being fair because they are saying if an international agreement is unfair to their working people, their industries, or their manufacturing sector, they will implement and take action to protect their people.

Some people may view this as protectionism. Some people say why should we as Canadians play the same game? It is a mugs' game when you start putting a defence of one sector over another or defending one situation with respect to international agreements when other countries are not doing that. It starts bidding up or bidding down the intricacies and the processes that are involved that have made this agreement work in the first place.

The government has to be fair to its own country, its own persons and its own industries and producers and manufacturers, by saying that in the event there is unfairness to Canadians, the government will have legislation which will protect the interests of Canadians to make it fair.

With respect to equity, we need an amendment in Bill C-57 which is equitable for everybody. We cannot insist on other countries doing what we are doing, but with respect to these amendments, we can inject some equity into the system.

I end my remarks by responding to a comment that was made by a Reform member a few moments ago. He talked about how this Bill C-57, without amendment, would ensure that we have a free trade agreement. I have a book here written by John Ralston Saul called The Doubter's Companion . It is a dictionary of aggressive common sense. It defines the word free as the most over used term in modern politics, evoked by everyone to mean anything.

Samuel Johnson once spoke of patriotism as the last refuge of scoundrels. Evocations of what is free and of freedom have now overtaken patriotism. This has led to a limitless series of oxymorons which have somehow become respectable: Free air miles, free trade, the twinning of free men and free markets when history demonstrates clearly that free markets do best under sophisticated dictatorships and chafe under limitations imposed by democracy. Another oxymoron with respect to the

word free is not only free trade but free love, free glasses at gas stations, free offers, and in general a free ride.

Of course parliamentarians here may be more aware of the oxymoron that we see almost firsthand in some of the actions we are taking as a Parliament now to rebuild our country after nine years of Conservative rule. The most widely used oxymoron in the entire country is Progressive Conservative. It does not make any sense. They are two opposites.

The problem with this word free is that it has two contradictory meanings, as Mr. Saul goes on to say. One refers to political freedom, or liberty, and has an ethical value; the other refers to an imaginary state of being in which there is no effort and no cost. Freedom is thus confused with the gambler's idea that you can get something for nothing, and that is why Johnson's scoundrels are attracted to it. I maintain that Bill C-57 as proposed, without amendment, will injure Canadians and industry. That is why New Democrats are putting forward these amendments, to ensure that Canadians' interests are protected at the international level so we can continue to build a strong country from sea to sea.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

As my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadowlake has said, let us do the right thing for producers, business people, farmers and the working people of Canada.

In summary, the American legislation protects its industries and its jobs. All we are asking in the amendment to Bill C-57 that we have put before the House is for the government to do the same; no more or no less but just to do the same so we can stand proudly as parliamentarians and say that we are aware of the challenges facing our producers, our workers and our industries and we are prepared to stand four-square behind them in making sure they are not at a disadvantage in the international marketplace.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in this House and support the New Democratic Party motion on Bill C-57 to provide the businesses and people of Canada with the same rights under the WTO as the Americans have.

I want to start my remarks by sharing with the House and the people of Canada the fact that I had an opportunity to meet with a number of U.S. senators and congressmen last spring. The purpose of the meetings were to discuss certain issues relating to Canada and the U.S. with respect to steel production, steel trade, exports and imports, as well as the question of the durum wheat export problems that the Americans perceive to be having with Canada.

This is what I concluded during the course of our discussions. We met with about 16 or 17 senators and congressmen from the United States. They are not free traders. They are not people who respect international agreements if the international agreements and free trade threaten their industries or jobs in their country or threaten markets which they have captured during the course of doing business.

We should not be discarding or brushing off Americans as incompetent business people. Americans usually undertake business to make money. They undertake business around the world to make money around the world. They do not give other countries concessions such as: "We will do a little business with your country and you can do a little business with our country and make a lot of money off us at the expense of jobs in the United States, at the expense of United States industry".

Americans are not stupid people and neither are their business people. They know full well when they see a business opportunity they will take full advantage of that business opportunity to maximize their profits and returns for their people.

From this visit with these American senators and congressmen I also concluded that they view trade with Canada as important, but they view protecting their own industries and their own jobs to be of greater importance. In view of that they have laws which the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has already outlined. They have clauses in their legislation to protect their industry. Under Bill C-57 we do not have the same protection with respect to the WTO for our own industry, businesses and producers.

Earlier in the day I spoke about the importance of the steel producers in Canada and the problems they are having with the Americans. Now even under the North American free trade agreement the Americans are able to say to the steel producers in Canada: "We appreciate your competition, but you are hurting jobs in the United States. Therefore we are going to undertake to countervail and create a little bit of a problem for your industry".

There are mechanisms in the agreements, but whenever they do this it causes a great deal of expense to the steel producers in Canada because they have to comply with all the American laws that protect the American industry. It costs them money for lawyers. It costs them money for analyses. It costs them money to produce an argument in support of their position with respect to exporting steel form Canada to the United States.

By the way, Canadian producers do not dump steel in the United States; they produce steel for contracts they have received in the United States of America. They produce the steel ready made. It is already pre-sold once it is there, but the Americans still do not like this process.

Bill C-57 is about 200 pages in length and is a fairly substantial bill. I know all five members of the House who are left here right now seem to be concerned about the bill and seeing it passed in its entirety. New Democrats on the other hand are quite concerned that the bill provide the same protection to its producers and manufacturers in Canada as the American legislation provides to their producers and manufacturers. That is all New Democrats are asking for.

We are asking for fairness. We are asking for equity. We are asking that the Government of Canada stand up on behalf of Canadian manufacturers, workers and others in the international market. The international market and other countries will be standing up for themselves. Unless Canadians feel it is a priority to protect and promote our own industry we have a real serious problem.

Therefore in this motion we are asking the government to do what other countries have done for their people. We are not asking for anything more. We are not asking even to be provocative. We are just saying that we should do what others have done. Let us do what the government is obliged to do, that is to protect Canadians in the event of trade agreements.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-57.

I want to make a comment in response to the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra. He made some comments with respect to the bill. He indicated that some of the amendments before the House would actually force the minister to stand up for Canadians. The member is opposed to that. He wants the bill and these types of laws implemented on an international basis so that ministers of our government and our people will not stand up for Canadians whether it be in supply management, the steel production area or any other manufacturing sector.

I want the House of Commons and the people of Canada to understand that the Liberal member from Quadra who represents the Liberal government in the debate does not want to restrict the minister to making any commitments or standing up and fighting for Canadians across the country when it has to happen. I find that very shameful.

I want to make some remarks with respect to the bill on behalf of steel producers of Canada. A steel producer in my constituency, IPSCO, is one of the larger producers or manufacturers of pipe and steel in North America. It actually has some operations in the United States as well, as do many Canadian steel producers. This industry is quite concerned about Bill C-57 as it is presented before the House today because there are no equal legislative footings in the act which would support it in cases respecting anti-dumping.

For example, in the United States there is detailed drafting of legislation and a law in effect which support American anti-dumping processes. Bill C-57 does not provide an equitable amount of protection for Canadian steel producers. The technical wording of Bill C-57 as it applies to anti-dumping should be revised in the view of the Canadian steel producers to mirror as strictly as possible U.S. implementing legislation.

The steel industry in Canada is quite important to the Canadian economy. In 1993 there were $8.6 billion in sales. It is a fully competitive operation, having dramatically raised productivity in Canada over the number of years it has been in existence. We have over $3 billion in exports from Canada mostly to the United States. The Canadian Steel Producers Association employs 33,000 employees, not counting all those who work in downstream operations such as distribution, fabrication and wire production.

Trade is increasingly important to the Canadian Steel Producers Association and in particular to our country. Trade in all goods and services increases economic growth which on its own is good for the steel industry. Trade in steel is becoming increasingly important to Canadian steel producers. It is reflected in the sense that they are concerned about some of the NAFTA and some of the American legislation which is protectionist. They have undertaken to initiate businesses in the United States to get around some of this, thereby costing Canadians jobs in the end. The volume of steel shipped from Canada for export has risen from 30 per cent in 1983 to nearly 40 per cent in the last year.

With respect to Bill C-57 I would like to talk about the sort of proposals the government might consider implementing to ensure that steel producers are not at a disadvantage with respect to American producers. There have been anti-dumping actions between Canada and the United States over the past two years. They have been involved with 11 different anti-dumping cases, 9 of which involved trade between Canada and the United States.

We believe such actions have no place in the free trade area. It would be to our mutual advantage to stop anti-dumping actions between our two countries. A NAFTA working group has been established to look at alternatives to the present anti-dumping regime in North America and has a deadline of December 1995. We want this effort to succeed so that steel can be traded within NAFTA on a basis of price, quality and service, not lawsuits.

So far lawsuits still play an important role. There is a major imbalance between the way American and Canadian anti-dumping processes work. This puts Canadian firms at a disadvantage. It weakens the bargaining leverage of the Canadian government in negotiating change. Bill C-57 does not address this particular issue. That is what I am calling upon the government to do today.

For example, data requirements under the U.S. system are so onerous as to be a barrier in trade to themselves regardless of the outcome of a case. If dumping is found, the Canadian system allows the company either to adjust prices to eliminate any unfair trade practice or pay a known duty. The American system does not allow an exporter to simply adjust his price. He has to pay the duty deposit. Moreover, the exact amount of the duty is unknown until months or years after the sale has been made. The Canadian exporter thus faces uncertainty and financial risk by continuing to export. Anti-dumping actions between Canada and the U.S. should be stopped, but as long as they continue Canada should do nothing to diminish its leverage to negotiate change.

Unlike the American implementation of legislation the Canadian bill provides no guidelines on what would be acceptable evidence. Without guidelines it would be very difficult for a Canadian company to know how to demonstrate foreseen and imminent threat of injury. American companies will have an easier task under their legislation, even though the same principle of the WTO is being implemented.

The U.S. implementing legislation also provides that if dumping diminishes in reaction to the filing of a complaint, the International Trade Commission may discount evidence after the filing in its assessment of injury. This makes it easier for an injury charge to stick. There is no comparable provision in Bill C-57. Again the legislative support for Canadian producers will be weaker than that for American producers.

We have the member for Vancouver Quadra saying: "We don't want the minister to be in charge of providing some support for Canadian producers; we want the American and the international fields to be speaking for our producers". We all know they will not be supporting or speaking for our steel producers.

With the U.S. legislation spelling out in detail options for interpretation for its responsible agency, it will be easier for American companies to get injury findings and for those findings to be defended in any process of review and appeal. There is also a concern in the steel production area with respect to assessing the threat of injury at the time of sunset review, which is after five years.

Bill C-57 does not say anything about how the threat of injury should be interpreted at the time of review of an anti-dumping action, but the American implementing legislation does. It states that the International Trade Commission, in determining whether the threat of injury meets the WTO criteria of clearly foreseen and imminent, may consider that the effects of revocation or termination may not be imminent but may manifest themselves over a longer period of time. And it may consider indirect effects including whether the imports would potentially inhibit a domestic producer from developing improved versions of the product.

In short, if we compare the wording of the U.S. and Canadian legislation to implement the sunset requirement of the WTO, it will clearly be much easier for American than for Canadian companies to prove the need for a continuation of anti-dumping action. It will also be easier for such a finding to be defended on appeal because of the latitude of interpretation spelled out in the American legislation.

There are other things that are quite important to the industry. I want to summarize by saying that the detailed drafting of the legislation should not be allowed to widen the gap between Canadian and American anti-dumping processes which already puts Canadian companies at a disadvantage with respect to their primary market and weakens the leverage of the Canadian government negotiating alternatives to anti-dumping under NAFTA.

The technical wording of Bill C-57 as it applies to anti-dumping should be revised to mirror as strictly as possible the implementing legislation of the United States. That is what we in the New Democratic Party caucus are calling for. That is what the steel producers of Canada and their association are calling upon the government to implement. We are asking that it happen by supporting the motions we have put before the House.